If you can’t make something good with 128 Mb – well then you can’t make anything good

Skill issues

Can’t wait for a 2bit 10khz sampler with 2kb memoy that can play just 2 notes by teenage engineering.
It will be the bomb.

The Commodore 64 had only 64K of RAM, and people used them to connect to BBSes and play games. They just made it work.

What is your excuse? Why does your computer need gigabytes of RAM and a terabyte hard drive?

That’s a good point.

I’ve found that building a collection of synths is a lot of fun, doesn’t make it any easier to actually make music. Sometimes I find myself spending more time on moving modules around, making a ‘dream rig’ and figuring out how to route patch cords to the mixer than actually making music.

I’m not a doctor but I think you are suffering from spec-itis.

Exactly how much memory would you need for this machine?

256mb? 1Gb? 32Gb?

You know once you walk that road (more, more), is difficult to know where to stop.

Are you aware of MPCs, Maschines, SP404s, MC707, Tonverk, Electribe Sample and the other handful of samplers that already have more capacity because their workflow and UI allows and caters to it?

How having more memory could make this piece of gear more fun? The moment you have to stop making music to start curating a sample library, you have gone back to “click”, “button”, “menu” territory. And that my friend, should NOT be where your music making time is spent.

“Enhanced storage will not lead to any negative outcomes”

Totally wrong.

Paralysis by analysis, hoarding libraries, Spending more time looking for sounds that creating or using them.

I prefer a tidy sample library in which everything is a 10/10 than hundreds of Gbs of redundancy, crap, silliness and just-in-case-someday-I-need-a-banjo-sample.

Point and shoot, direct from artist to music. No mangling, no managing. That’s why DAWless setups are increasingly being used these days.

1, The songs you cite were made using studios equipped with loads of great gear. Like you suggested, people who buy kit like this want to sequence whole songs on single devices and save multiple projects on them without relying on ancient floppy disks. Nothing wrong with that.. Doubling the memory’s great news.

2, Do you reckon Depeche Mode would’ve rejected an EMU sampler with a larger memory? I don’t, because they’ve continued to collect newer, more powerful gear. Have a look at their incredible studios.

Arguing against minor enhancements like this just weird, dude. Enhanced storage will not lead to any negative outcomes.

128mb total memory in 2026 is just plain silly and your point doesn’t address it..

Obviously I’m not the target ?
I’m just a musician….?

My point is still valid.

In fact my point – if anything – proves that we are not very talented given the tools we have in the palm of our hand.

We don’t need to rent a fancy studio to record. We can contact and play online with any musician all over the world, and send and receive audio files in a couple of minutes.

Sonically and musically we have tools that surpass by various order of magnitude what they had back then, and yet a song is still a song, a string sound is a string sound and the only real thing at the end of the day is emotion and our ability as musicians to convey it through sound, silence and music.

Back then real talent could not be faked. You had it or not.

A pocket sampler with 128mb of memory is more than enough to make music. It has a sequencer, a microphone, line input, internal FXs and a bunch of melodic/rhythmic party tricks.

People that complain about the capacity of this sampler are simply not the intended target audience. You have plenty of options that are more capable, with user interfaces according to that use. This is a melodic playground, a FXs machine, a portable beatbox and a DJ companion.

Can’t wait for new Casio Sampler to slap this thing with 64 GB.

yeah, but that came out in like 1987